HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

RENMARK IRRIGATION TRUST BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 1961.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:58): In relation to comments made by people connected to the trust but who were not consulted, they indicated that uneconomic infrastructure cannot necessarily be removed as there may still be a few people requiring it now or later when the quarantine period expires. It has been indicated that these people have tried to discuss these matters with Senator Wong at the federal level, but she regards these changes as very good and will not hear of changing things to take the above problems into account. They believe that the federal minister and her department do not trust irrigators not to cheat the system. I guess that depends on an individual's particular reading of the issue.

I will make a few remarks regarding the history of the Renmark Irrigation Trust. Renmark is a town which was transformed by Australia's first irrigation scheme. I believe it was irrigation scheme No. 1 for this country. The Chaffey brothers were the founders of Australia's first irrigation settlement in Renmark in 1887. This made Renmark the first irrigation colony in Australia. The Chaffey brothers were invited by the South Australian government to establish their fruit colony, and the brothers quickly accepted. On 14 February 1887, an agreement was signed for the establishment at Renmark for the first irrigation settlement in Australia.

The early days provided high hopes, generous early harvests, rapidly increasing land values and a general fever of excitement despite the difficult conditions. Such difficulties included issues over water rights—they do not seem to go away—destruction of irrigation channels and the first signs of salinity encountered in irrigation.

The original act governing irrigation in the Renmark region was the Chaffey Brothers Irrigation Works Act 1887 and, as I indicated earlier, this was the first irrigation act anywhere in Australia. It was changed and repealed 15 times before the act as it now stands (the Renmark Irrigation Trust Act 1936) was established which, if this new bill passes, will be repealed.

The opposition supports the passage of this bill. We think it is absolutely necessary to make sure that water trade can be conducted in an orderly manner and also for South Australians to comply with the different federal legislation coming into play. It is a very sad time for the river, as everyone knows, when you consider that exit grants, which were announced last October, are even part of the equation.

We have a government in this state that has presided over a river that is very quickly dying. I acknowledge the water purchased for permanent plantings that was leased in, because that is something the Liberals had pushed. Also, as to the exit grants, it has taken a long time to get the structures in place so that people can make the right decisions about whether to stay or go.

It has been very sad to see the issues right up and down the river. In the Riverland over the past couple of years, before the advent of carryover water, people paid millions of dollars to purchase temporary water to keep their crops alive. It has placed many stresses on people throughout the Riverland, down through mid-Murray and the Lower Murray. Further down the river we have seen the issues that those involved in horticulture are facing; they obviously do not qualify for the permanent plantings money. This has made people move their irrigation into areas like the southern Mallee and the South-East.

Also, we have seen the total demise of an irrigation sector down at Narrung. Langhorne Creek and Currency Creek have problems with salinity and, obviously, Goolwa's tourism industry is on its knees due to lack of water. It seems ironic that the government is presiding over engineering works down here when perhaps there needs to be more effort made at a higher level, and I acknowledge that the Premier announced that he would lease in some water for the Lower Lakes. It will be interesting to know how much water is earmarked for that program. We have also heard about a High Court challenge against what Victoria is doing as far as its reticence on moving on the 4 per cent cap is concerned. We have seen Victoria swing too much weight in this whole issue of water.

Mr Venning: Far too much.

Mr PEDERICK: Far too much weight, as the member for Schubert acknowledges, and we have seen far too many issues right throughout. It is just ridiculous that the River Murray is basically on its deathbed. I will probably say more in the debate on the irrigation bill, but with those few words I commend the Renmark irrigation bill.

I reiterate that the opposition supports it. It is absolutely vital that this goes through and I acknowledge the level of consultation that has gone on with this bill with all parties. It seems odd that there has actually been some consultation on a government bill. I am told that, when issues were brought up, the government listened. You wonder why the same action could not have been taken in regard to issues like Mobilong Prison, country health, marine parks and the houseboat strategy. It is a pity that the same sort of consultation could not be put into play to get more work done on protecting such an iconic resource as the River Murray, not only for this state but for the nation. With those few words, I commend the bill.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:07): The Irrigation Bill 2009 is very relevant and important, even though it will not get a huge amount of time before this house, because we do not disagree with it. Noting this, the bill replaces the Irrigation Act 1994 and the Renmark Irrigation Trust Act 1936, which is a long time ago, and here we are again—it has taken a long time.

The Irrigation Act 1994 is now at odds with the commonwealth water reform agenda, which seeks to remove the regulatory barriers to the trade of permanent water outside a given area of an irrigation district by separating water from the land. We have had a lot of debate about that—separating water from land—particularly over the last 10 years that I can recall, but we certainly have moved on in relation to all this.

The Renmark Irrigation Trust Act 1936 gave irrigators no opportunity to transform a right into a licence; trade of water was not even mentioned. A second matter concerning the RIT relates to its structure, which has left it outside of other newer legislation. Well, things have certainly changed in this area. Water now has a high value and it is a tradeable product, and we therefore have to upgrade legislation to allow that trade.

I recall that, when we were in government, we gave out these water allocations. We know that there was a lot of business going on, and some of it was concerning because some people, who were not using water, took up licences, because they all sort of knew that it was going to become valuable. However, there was going to be a point in time when we had to do this.

I recall that the then minister Dale Baker raised the matter. We knew that a lot of people, who were not using the water were taking up licences. We tried to ensure that people who were sitting on licences were using the water, because we knew they had a value, but now, of course, they have a value which is many times the value when we created them.

In relation to this bill there are several objectives, notably, the need to take into account current management practices and policy directions and the need for compliance with federal policy directions. If only we had a single, independent, whole-of-basin management group with no responsibilities to individual states, we would then have full tradability across all borders and we would have a system managed as a river system. It is a damn shame.

I think that the whole commonwealth structure has fallen down when state boundaries can impede, like this, on a single river system. This is probably the biggest failing of the federation. I think we should be thinking a lot bigger and thinking outside the square.

If only John Howard had had his way. At that particular time, we all know, he put up the proposal and he put up $10 billion to go with it as a carrot to make sure that we got in a single, whole-of-basin management group. However, we heard our Premier's trumpeting, saying that he was going to put his stamp on it for full independence. Well, he was so called successful; and what do we have today? We really have not received anything.

We are back in the same mess we were in prior to the whole thing, when the Victorians can almost veto everything we do, particularly for the time being, and, to make it worse, take water from the system for the city. When we are trying to wean Adelaide off the river, Melbourne is coming on the river. It makes you wonder. The whole debate has gone somewhere we never would have believed. I only wish that John Howard's wish had been successful.

We need to totally free up water trading across all state borders and then we will see true market forces come in to play. We really cannot have all the water being held upstream. I am sure there is enough water in the stream, in the rivers, in the whole catchment, to solve some of the problems—not all of them, but some of them—in relation to the Lower Lakes, the river and in relation to Adelaide's water supply. It is all held upstream.

I know the shadow minister, the member for Hammond, has flown over it. I will be visiting it next week and going down the river from Mannum to Murray Bridge in the Marion. It is a good way to see the river. There is water up there and it is being held in huge dams—Cubbie Station and others, and the government has bought one of them—which are held there basically for rice and cotton growing. Really, those sorts of activities ought to be restricted (I did not say banned) because it is not an efficient, economical use of the water.

I am sure that, if we allow the true market forces to react totally and allow trade across the borders, our grape growers in South Australia could afford to buy that water via the two schemes that we have—the BIL scheme, which I helped pioneer, and also the scheme in Clare. It would assure that water stays in the river. You can call it environmental flows—call it what you like you like—but it would solve a lot of the problems that we have now.

The member for Hammond is very much a warrior, a gladiator standing on his own on the weir. It is a tough fight for a member who has been in the house for three years. I tell you what, it has made him go grey overnight. It is a pretty serious matter. It is hard when we have a whole-of-river system in this state going from the Riverland down to the Lower Lakes and everybody has a totally different point of view.

It is very difficult, when we have three members representing that river, to have a common point of view, as we do. We support the member for Hammond in his campaign. I admire the guts and determination of the gentleman. Admittedly, he has the size to go with it—I do not think I would ever threaten him. He has certainly dug in, and I admire him for that. Many a weaker person would have asked whether it is worth the hassle, but he has stuck in there.

Back to the bill. In respect to the RIT, the bill's major function is to transform a member's existing water right into an owned and tradeable right. Until now, the Renmark Irrigation Trust members were not able to sell their rights separately as they remained with the trust. Subsequently, amongst other things, it was unable to access the federal government's exit packages.

With respect to the Renmark trust structure, the ratepayers have now become members, and members of the board have become directors, allowing definitions and other qualifications defining the new acts to cover participants of the Renmark Irrigation Trust. Also, directors will now be elected from the membership as opposed to being appointed by the board.

In closing, I indicate that we support the bill. It is a very difficult issue. I do not think I could name one other issue that has caused so much public concern in relation to the water in the river and who is entitled to it, how we arrange our trading, and how we regulate it. It is a very difficult issue.

It was not an issue 10 years ago. When I first came into this place 18 years ago, it was not an issue at all. It was open slather. It was, 'Take as much water as you like. No problem.' Then, all of a sudden—boom—we are in this situation. The problem is that we have allowed this to happen. Water has been too cheap, and we have not been responsible. We should have done something about this problem five, eight or 10 years ago, but we did not and now we are paying the price.

In closing, I pay tribute to the former Liberal government because, over all the other states, it got rid of all the open drains in South Australia. People tend to forget that, although the member for Chaffey would know. We got rid of all our open drains, and we were an example to the rest of Australia.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald: Channels.

Mr VENNING: I thank the minister. We got rid of all our open channels, and we are one of the poorer states. So, why didn't the other states, particularly Victoria, do the same? They did not do anything. So, we can stand up with a lot of credibility in relation to this issue. We spent money doing that so that we did not lose water by way of evaporation or through the ground by way of leaking channels. However, the other states have done nothing. So, why are we being doubly penalised? We spent the money then, and we are now being penalised because other states are keeping back water.

Certainly, it is a very emotive and difficult issue for our state, and I commend both the minister and the shadow minister because it is tough. The Liberal opposition is concerned that the government did not do more earlier but, in this instance, we support the bill.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD (Chaffey—Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water Security) (16:17): I thank members opposite for their contribution and also for their support for this bill. This bill will ensure that the Renmark Irrigation Trust is well equipped to meet current and future challenges in relation to the management and operation of shared irrigation and drainage infrastructure. It also recognises the special place that the Renmark Irrigation Trust holds in the Renmark community. I really do thank the Renmark Irrigation Trust for its engagement throughout the review of the legislation and the manner in which it has informed the process and embraced the changes.

The acceptance of this bill continues the state's commitment to water reform, ensuring that there are no restrictions to the permanent trade of water and providing for flexibility for the trust in the management of water licences and flexibility for individual members in regard to transforming their irrigation right.

Changes will also allow for the expansion of provision of water to areas previously outside irrigation district boundaries, which will be a major change in how Renmark Irrigation Trust can manage its business. Changes will ensure compliance with key government policy directions, including the National COAG Water Reform of 1994 and the National Water Initiative of 2004. It will also ensure compliance with the Inter-Governmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform in 2008 and consistency with the Water Act 2007.

I thank all honourable members who have supported this important initiative and allowed its speedy passage through the house. In addition, I thank Stevie Austin and Julie Mrotek from the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, and Richard Dennis from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for assisting in the preparation of the bill.

Bill read a second time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (16:20): This bill provides for the continuation of the Renmark Irrigation Trust for the purposes of management and operation of irrigation and drainage infrastructure in the area around Renmark. The bill repeals the Renmark Irrigation Trust Act 1936. That act provided for the continuation of the Renmark Irrigation Trust, which was established in 1893. The 1936 act was a consolidation of the provisions of the scheme detailed in a range of acts which have been passed by the parliament since 1887.

In 1893, speaker Coles noted that the bill was to create a body to deal with water rights within the Renmark settlement area and to provide it with necessary powers. He ruled:

...as private interests not held in common with the general public are affected by this bill, I think after its second reading it should be referred to a select committee, before whom any person whose property or rights may be prejudicially affected by its provisions may be heard. In other words, the Bill appears to me to be within the spirit, if not the exact words of Joint Standing Order No 2, and should be dealt with as a hybrid or quasi private bill.

Subsequent bills amended the act in 1920 and 1933, and some 17 bills since the 1936 act were referred to a select committee in accordance with the practice of the house for the purpose outlined by speaker Coles.

The bill aligns the operations of the trust scheme with those of other irrigation schemes it is proposed to make subject to the Irrigation Bill, which is also before the house and which has the effect of negating its exclusive elements. However, the Renmark Irrigation Trust Bill does continue to promote the particular interests of the trust as a local body corporate. Therefore, in accordance with joint standing order 2, I rule the Renmark Irrigation Trust Bill 2009 to be a hybrid bill.

Referred to Select Committee

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD (Chaffey—Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water Security) (16:21): I move:

That this bill be referred to a select committee, pursuant to joint standing order 2.

Motion carried.

The house appointed a select committee consisting of Mr Kenyon, the Hon. S.W. Key, Mr Pederick, Mr Williams and the Hon. K.A. Maywald; the committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to adjourn from place to place; and to report on 25 March 2009.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD (Chaffey—Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water Security) (16:22): I move:

That the committee have leave to sit during the sitting of the house today, if necessary.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT